Angelilli v. Activision Blizzard: Video Game Addiction Complaint

• Document: Complaint (jury trial demanded), 210 pages
• Case caption: Jaclyn Angelilli, individually and on behalf of D.G., a minor v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
• Docket number: No. 1:23-cv-16566
• Date filed: December 6, 2023
• Parties: Plaintiff: Jaclyn Angelilli, on behalf of her minor child D.G. Defendants: Activision Blizzard, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Sledgehammer Games, Raven Software, Microsoft, Epic Games, Roblox Corporation, War Drum Studios (Grove Street Games), Rockstar North, Rockstar Games, Take-Two Interactive, Sony Interactive Entertainment, Nintendo of America, Google, and Apple.
• Causes of action: Strict liability (design defect; failure to warn; failure to instruct), negligence (design; failure to warn; failure to instruct; per se; ordinary; gross), intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and in-concert liability.

Transcribed from the complaint's Nature of the Action. These are the plaintiff's allegations.

The complaint notes that video game addiction is "also called internet gaming disorder." It calls it "a condition characterized by severely reduced control over gaming habits and increasing priority given to gaming over other activities." It says the result is "negative consequences in many aspects of a person's life, including self-care, relationships, school, and work."

It alleges that the defendants "manufactured, published, marketed, and sold video games, gaming platforms, and/or gaming hardware." According to the complaint, the companies "had specifically developed and designed" those products "to cause the addiction experienced" by the plaintiff and other users. The tools it names are "traditional game tactics such as feedback loops and reward systems." It adds "patented designs containing addictive features and technology to ensure its users keep playing longer and spending more on 'microtransactions' within the game."

The complaint further alleges that the defendants "design their games to keep consumers playing — and spending — by enlisting the help of behavioral psychologists and neuroscientists." It says the companies profit "by acquiring — and addicting — users when they are young." According to the complaint, that secures "their profit stream by ensuring future engagement and monetization as these young users age." It characterizes this as the use of "unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive trade practices and conduct that prioritizes gamer engagement and spending over gamer safety."

The plaintiff. The complaint alleges that D.G., a minor, developed a gaming addiction that caused "severe emotional distress, diminished social interactions, loss of friends, poor hygiene." It lists withdrawal symptoms including "rage, anger, and physical outbursts." D.G. was diagnosed with depression, ADHD, and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), the complaint says, and needed out-patient counseling, private tutoring, and a school accommodation plan.

Conspiracy theory. Like the other cases in this group, the complaint alleges that the defendants "conspired or acted in concert to addict a generation of young video game players." The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation discussed that theory specifically when it declined to centralize the cases.